...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Depression research and treatment >Assigning Clinical Significance and Symptom Severity Using the Zung Scales: Levels of Misclassification Arising from Confusion between Index and Raw Scores
【24h】

Assigning Clinical Significance and Symptom Severity Using the Zung Scales: Levels of Misclassification Arising from Confusion between Index and Raw Scores

机译：使用Zung Scales分配临床意义和症状严重程度：从指数和原始分数之间混淆引起的错误分类水平

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background. The Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) and Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) are two norm-referenced scales commonly used to identify the presence of depression and anxiety in clinical research. Unfortunately, several researchers have mistakenly applied index score criteria to raw scores when assigning clinical significance and symptom severity ratings. This study examined the extent of this problem. Method. 102 papers published over the six-year period from 2010 to 2015 were used to establish two convenience samples of 60 usages of each Zung scale. Results. In those papers where cut-off scores were used (i.e., 45/60 for SDS and 40/60 for SAS), up to 51% of SDS and 45% of SAS papers involved the incorrect application of index score criteria to raw scores. Inconsistencies were also noted in the severity ranges and cut-off scores used. Conclusions. A large percentage of publications involving the Zung SDS and SAS scales are using incorrect criteria for the classification of clinically significant symptoms of depression and anxiety. The most common error—applying index score criteria to raw scores—produces a substantial elevation of the cut-off points for significance. Given the continuing usage of these scales, it is important that these inconsistencies be highlighted and resolved.
机译：背景。 Zung自我评级抑郁尺度（SDS）和自我评级焦虑尺度（SAS）是两个常用的标度，通常用于识别临床研究中抑郁和焦虑的存在。不幸的是，在分配临床意义和症状严重程度评级时，若干研究人员将误认为是原始评分的指数分数标准。这项研究检查了这个问题的程度。方法。 102篇论文在2010年至2015年的六年期间发布，用于建立每个Zung规模的60个使用的便利样本。结果。在使用截止评分的纸张中（即SDS 45/60，SAS的40/60），高达51％的SDS和45％的SAS论文涉及指数分数标准对原始分数的错误应用。在严重程度范围和使用的截止分数中也注明了不一致性。结论。涉及Zung SDS和SAS尺度的大量出版物正在使用不正确的抑郁和焦虑症状分类标准。原始分数最常见的误差索引分数标准 - 产生截止点的显着高度，以实现显着性。鉴于这些尺度的持续使用，重要的是，这些不一致突出显示并解决。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号